Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, Nestorianism, and Oriental Church History

[Sam Jer]

This thread is split from the thread "Where are the Trinitarian and Christological Boundaries", and with a similar idea in mind as "How to View the Christian East Between 780-2025".

---

I have been exposed to two differing accounts of the Chalcedonian Controversy.
The first - claims that the whole thing was over a semantic diffrence between the way the two parties spoke about the Godhead and Humanity of the One Christ, creating a tragic division, with those using the word "natures" ending up as Chalcedonian Christians (Protestant, Eastern, Romanist) and those who did not becoming the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Ethiopian Tawahedo).
The second, is that actual heretics showed up, teaching that Christ's two natures are actually one mixed nature, and were rightly condemned, but that they drew the Egyptians, Armenians, Ethiopians and many Syrians with them.

I honestly doubt the first account. I don't view church history as a bunch of kids refusing to play with eachother over technicalities. I have a hard time believing these fathers didn't have enough brainpower for someone to realize that "hey, these guys are saying the same thing with different words". However, I do not know for a fact that the second account is true.
Additionally, the Orientals distinguish monophysitism from miaphysitism, and I do not know if this is a semantic workaround or a legitimate diffrence.
Additionally, I do not know just how bad an error here should be viewed. When held and maintained and defended as the "oriental orthodox" have, is it a full-blown damming heresy? Or something that is still serious, but not enough to alone put the Orientals outside the invisible church? Same question applies to Nestorians and the Church of the East.

One reason this matters is church history in this part of the world. Gavin Ortlund, for example, sees these churches relatively favourably, and sees the Stefanite movement in Ethiopia as a precursor to the Reformation. More then that, it seems Luther, after meeting an Ethiopian munk, viewed him as a brother in Christ and treated him better than Zwingli. Are they simply wrong? Or is Oriental orthodoxy still, well, somewhat orthodox into the 14th century?
In that case, how does this effect the way we view them today? Similarly to the Eastern Orthodox? The Medieval Church? Better than that? Or just another heresy among many?

And since we are already discussing them, what do we know about their views on other things? Are they Eastern Orthodox in their views or do they do their own thing? What is their soteriology for example (if they have some measure if internal agreement on it)?

 

[RamistThomist]

John McGuckin's account of Cyril and the aftermath is probably the best one. To find out what they believe, find some of their main thinkers and read them.

 

[Sam Jer]

John McGuckin's account of Cyril and the aftermath is probably the best one. To find out what they believe, find some of their main thinkers and read them.

Does McGuckin's account take a specific stand on my questions? If so, which? Or does it just present the data and let the reader make his conclusions?

 

[RamistThomist]

Does McGuckin's account take a specific stand on my questions? If so, which? Or does it just present the data and let the reader make his conclusions?

He presents the arguments of both sides. He doesn't worry about heretics and stuff, as it is an academic book. In any case, EO are largely indifferent to drawing the line on who is in and out of salvation.

And until large amounts are translated from Coptic, Ge'ez, and Syriac, we simply do not have many reliable theological analyses of the issue.

 

[Elias_Amare]

When one digs deep into Ethiopian Tewahedo, one finds that Ethiopian Tewahedo is different in many ways from other Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.
In the 13th century, there was a "movement" called "The “Restoration” of the 'Solomonic' Dynasty" that claimed that they were descendants of the last king of Aksum and elaborated in the Glory of Kings ("Kibre Negest") that associated Ethiopia with the Judeo-Christian tradition. This movement continues until the 20th, up to Emperor Haile Selassie I. The movement mingled with Ethiopian Tewahedo in many ways throughout history. The 16th Jesuits who came with Portuguese soldiers, trying to convert Ethiopia's Tewahedo to the "Vatican Church", failed. They concluded that Ethiopia Tewahedo is a "pentateuchian" (old covenant) church, not a gospel/new covenant church. Emperor Gelawdewos tried to answer the Jesuits accusation by distinguishing between Ethiopia's Tewahedo dogma and Ethiopian culture (tradition) as such. Ethiopian Tewahedo church members can practise the ceremonial law as tradition, though not as gospel, but today, Ethiopian Tewahedo is not very successful at distinguishing them as Gelawdewos.

Considering their Christological formulation, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint what they teach because there are many interpretations concerning their beliefs from different groups, but you can find the church teaching concerning Christology here. For example, on the work of Christ, they deny Christ's heavenly intercession.

 

[Sam Jer]

When one digs deep into Ethiopian Tewahedo, one finds that Ethiopian Tewahedo is different in many ways from other Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.
In the 13th century, there was a "movement" called "The “Restoration” of the 'Solomonic' Dynasty" that claimed that they were descendants of the last king of Aksum and elaborated in the Glory of Kings ("Kibre Negest") that associated Ethiopia with the Judeo-Christian tradition. This movement continues until the 20th, up to Emperor Haile Selassie I. This movement mingled with Ethiopian Tewahedo in many ways throughout history. The 16th Jesuits who came with Portuguese soldiers, trying to convert Ethiopia's Tewahedo to the "Vatican Church", failed. They concluded that Ethiopia Tewahedo is a "pentateuchian" (old covenant) church, not a gospel/new covenant church. Emperor Gelawdewos tried to answer the Jesuits accusation by distinguishing between Ethiopia's Tewahedo dogma and Ethiopian culture (tradition) as such. Ethiopian Tewahedo church members can practise the ceremonial law as tradition, though not as gospel, but today, Ethiopian Tewahedo is not very successful at distinguishing them as Gelawdewos.

Considering their Christological formulation, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint what they teach because there are many interpretations concerning their beliefs for different groups, but you can find the church teaching concerning Christology here. For example, on the work of Christ, they deny Christ's heavenly intercession.

In what sense are they pentateuchian?

 

[Elias_Amare]

In what sense are they pentateuchian?

Their adherence to Sabbath observance, circumcision, and the prohibition against pork and other 'unclean' foods.' Also, they have a "tabot", a "replica" of the Ark of the Covenant, which represents the presence of God. (the repository of the Holy Plate (Tsilat) on which the Ten Commandments were written and given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai). A tabot is usually six inches (15 cm) square and may be made from alabaster, marble, or wood from an acacia tree – although the maximum length of 40 cm is more common.

 

[Sam Jer]

Their adherence to Sabbath observance, circumcision, and the prohibition against pork and other 'unclean' foods.' Also, they have a "tabot", a "replica" of the Ark of the Covenant, which represents the presence of God. (the repository of the Holy Plate (Tsilat) on which the Ten Commandments were written and given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai). A tabot is usually six inches (15 cm) square and may be made from alabaster, marble, or wood from an acacia tree – although the maximum length of 40 cm is more common.

Sounds the errors common in our respective countries have a lot in common. I guess I might know half of what I need to answer Tawahedo due to Hebrew-Roots-like groups and Judaism proper? Or do they use other arguments?

 

[Elias_Amare]

Sounds the errors common in our respective countries have a lot in common. I guess I might know half of what I need to answer Tawahedo due to Hebrew-Roots-like groups and Judaism proper? Or do they use other arguments?

I'm not knowledgeable on the Hebrew Roots arguments; you may find an overlap. But most of Tewahedo's arguments are somewhat "unique".
Their argument for "tabot" is that Ethiopia had, long before Christianity, accepted the Old Testament and worship of God. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church had accepted and preserved the Old Testament and the rites contained therein. As the Lord said in the Gospel, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever practises and teaches these commands will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19). Accordingly, one of those that have been taken from the Old Testament and is practised by the "Church is the Ark" ("Tabot") has God’s name on it. The Ark is the means by which the covenant made between God and man is kept. The ancient Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church combines and uses the tradition of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament in a Christian spirit.

The Ark (Tabot) is, for the church, the main manifestation of its faith and order. Arks are made in the names of the Trinity, the Virgin Mary, Saints, Angels, Prophets, Apostles, Righteous and Martyrs. If an Ark falls into unseemly hands, it is reconsecrated with the prayer and blessing of a bishop and is anointed with Myron. The pictures of Cherub, the Trinity, St. Mary, and St. John the evangelist are made on it. No liturgy can be conducted at a church where the Ark is absent and it is not called a church.

 

[arapahoepark]

Samuel Moffett's two volume History of Christianity in Asia would be something to look into.

 

[Sam Jer]

Considering their Christological formulation, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint what they teach because there are many interpretations concerning their beliefs from different groups, but you can find the church teaching concerning Christology here. For example, on the work of Christ, they deny Christ's heavenly intercession

Okay I read their article, and also skimmed through an article on a Coptic website (warning: a second commandment violation is very prominently displayed on this site on the upper left corner) they link to on the subject.
Unless I am completely mistaken, their view is
(1) Christ's divine and human nature underwent a union in the womb of the theotokos, and became one nature with one will, without confusion or mixture or change.
They try to draw a sharp contrast from Eutychianism, which from what I understand they define as
(2) Christ's human nature was absorbed by the divine nature in the womb of the theotokos, and became one nature with one will, mixing the two into one
But also from the Chalcedonian view we hold, that being
(3) Christ's human and divine natures united in the one person of Christ, while remaining distinct, and thus Christ has a divine will and a human one


The Coptic article claims all this is necessary to hold for soteriological reasons.




Ignoring for a moment the logical consistency or lack thereof of view 1, how bad is this?
Also, does anyone know if they adapted their language on this since chalcedon or if they are as consistent with their history as they claim to be?

 

[RamistThomist]

Ignoring for a moment the logical consistency or lack thereof of view 1, how bad is this?

You can find Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus saying something similar.

 

[Sam Jer]

You can find Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus saying something similar.

1. I assume this means you think this is a relatively acceptable view, correct?

2. In context, are they saying the same things, or are they being uncareful with their language as I am sure we all are on the theological controversies of the 22nd century? Or do we not know?

3. This is the view condemned at Chalcedon, correct? Would you say Chalcedon was too harsh?

 

[Andrew35]

When one digs deep into Ethiopian Tewahedo, one finds that Ethiopian Tewahedo is different in many ways from other Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.
In the 13th century, there was a "movement" called "The “Restoration” of the 'Solomonic' Dynasty" that claimed that they were descendants of the last king of Aksum and elaborated in the Glory of Kings ("Kibre Negest") that associated Ethiopia with the Judeo-Christian tradition. This movement continues until the 20th, up to Emperor Haile Selassie I. The movement mingled with Ethiopian Tewahedo in many ways throughout history. The 16th Jesuits who came with Portuguese soldiers, trying to convert Ethiopia's Tewahedo to the "Vatican Church", failed. They concluded that Ethiopia Tewahedo is a "pentateuchian" (old covenant) church, not a gospel/new covenant church. Emperor Gelawdewos tried to answer the Jesuits accusation by distinguishing between Ethiopia's Tewahedo dogma and Ethiopian culture (tradition) as such. Ethiopian Tewahedo church members can practise the ceremonial law as tradition, though not as gospel, but today, Ethiopian Tewahedo is not very successful at distinguishing them as Gelawdewos.

Considering their Christological formulation, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint what they teach because there are many interpretations concerning their beliefs from different groups, but you can find the church teaching concerning Christology here. For example, on the work of Christ, they deny Christ's heavenly intercession.

Very interesting! Thanks for your contribution!

Incidentally, and not to hijack the thread, but just real quick: is visiting Ethiopia right now a good idea or bad idea? It's definitely on the list of places I'd love to visit. Huge fan of the food and history.

 

[Elias_Amare]

Also, does anyone know if they adapted their language on this since Chalcedon or if they are as consistent with their history as they claim to be?

They claim that 1) the Council of Ephesus was Miaphysite and contra the Chalcedon creed; especially, they appeal to the 3rd anathema. 2) They claim Cyril of Alexandria was Miaphysite and appeal to his third letter to Nestorius. 3) They appeal to Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria. 4) For their language, the appeal was the first from Flavian, Bp. of Constantinople, to Pope Leo. Therefore, one can see they are inconsistent with their understanding of early church fathers, councils and history. But, for example, in Ethiopia's Tewahedo theology, you don't find much of a development in their doctrine throughout history except departing from Orthodox Christianity from time to time, especially in practice. Concerning Christology, the only thing I remember is that there was a controversy about Christ's birth in the early 17th. Besides that, they could be "consistent" with their own history since there was no development.

is visiting Ethiopia right now a good idea or bad idea? It's definitely on the list of places I'd love to visit. Huge fan of the food and history.

Although there are political conflicts in some urban areas, most of Ethiopia's major cities are safe to visit.

 

[Sam Jer]

It was oddly difficult to find anything that addresses this from it's own period (that can be read online and without first learning Latin and Greek), but I found A letter written by Leo the Great to the monks of Palestine. He explicitly approves of the decision to anathematize not only Eutychus but also Discorus (the guy the orientals agree with). It is not long, but for those who do not want to read it, his key arguments are:

- Eutychus practically denies either Christ's humanity, or the impassibility and unchangebility of God (it seems that he implies that the same is true of Discorus, but he does not say so explicitly)
- He asks what reconciliation and what hope there can be, without Christ's humanity
- He insists on the separation between the acts of each nature (the Coptic article I referenced above, written by their own Pope Shenouda III, instead insists on one act and one will, and goes to the lengths of insisting that the divinity suffered)
- He insists that Christ was exalted "in the form of a slave", i.e according to his humanity
- He concludes by lamenting the position chosen by, and the conduct of, the monks of Palestine

Clearest quotes by Leo:

for the catholic Faith upholds and defends both positions, believing the only Son of God to be both Man and the Word according to the distinctive properties of His divine and human substance

For as the original chains of our captivity could not be loosed, unless a man of our race and of our nature appeared who was not under the prejudice of the old debt, and who with his untainted blood might blot out the bond of death, as it had from the beginning been divinely fore-ordained, so it came to pass in the fulness of the appointed time that the promise which had been proclaimed in many ways might reach its long expected fulfilment, and that thus, what had been frequently announced by one testimony after another, might have all doubtfulness removed.

Give up, my sons, give up these suggestions of the devil. God's Truth nothing can impair, but the Truth does not save us except in our flesh. For, as the prophet says, "truth is sprung out of the earth," and the Virgin Mary conceived the Word in such wise that she ministered flesh of her substance to be united to Him without the addition of a second person, and without the disappearance of her nature: seeing that He who was in the form of God took the form of a slave in such wise that Christ is one and the same in both forms: God bending Himself to the-weak things of man, and man rising up to the high things of the Godhead, as the Apostle says, "whose are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh is Christ, who is above all things God blessed for ever. Amen."

Quote from Shenouda, explaining in what sense the divinity suffered according to Coptic theology:

But, did the Divinity suffer?
We say that, essentially, the Divine nature is not susceptible to suffering yet He suffered
due to His humanity, and was physically crucified. Hence we say in the prayer of the
None (the sixth hour), "You Who have tasted death physically in the sixth hour"
He, the man, united with the Godhead, physically died and His death provided unlimited
atonement

Open question:
- Is Leo, and Chalcedon, correct in condemning the views of Discorus (and hence Shenouda), rather than Eutychus alone? I am starting to think he is - but I was biased in favour of the view held seemingly by pretty much everyone before lovey-dovey ecumenism.
[automerge]1744997121[/automerge]

You can find Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus saying something similar.

Where do they say this?

Do they go to the same lengths as Shenouda (the divinity suffering, no distinction between human and divine acts, ext?)